2009 D e c i sion s O p inion s of the U nit e d S t at e s C our t of Appe al s for the Thir d C ir c uit 6-4-2009 

# Zhi hong Zh a o v

. Atty Ge n U SA P r e c e de nt i al or N on-P r e c e de nt i al : N on-P r e c e de nt i al D ocke t N o . 08-1577

F o llow thi s and a dd it ion al work s at : http://d i git alc ommon s .l a w . vi ll anova . e du/thir dc ir c uit_2009

Thi s de c i sion i s br ou ght t o you for f r e e and ope n a c c e s s b y the O p inion s of the U nit e d S t at e s C our t of Appe al s for the Thir d C ir c uit at V i ll anova U nive r sity S choo l of L a

w Di git al Reposit ory

. It h as be e n a c c ept e d for inclusion in 2009 D e c i sion s b y an author i z e d a dmini s tr at or of V i ll anova U nive r sity S choo l of L a

w Di git al Reposit ory

. F or mor e inform at ion, p le as e c ont a ct Be n j amin . C arl s on@l a

w . vi ll anova . e du . Re c omme nde d C it at ion
" Zhi hon g Zh a o v

. Atty Ge n U SA" (2009). 2009 D e cisio n s . P ape r 1241. http://d i git alc ommon s .l a

w . vi ll anova . e du/thir dc ir c uit_2009/1241NOT P RE CE DE NT I AL UN I TED STATES CO UR T OF A PP EALS F O R T H E T H IR D C IR C U IT N o. 08- 1577 Z HI HONG Z HAO, Pet i t i oner v . A TTO RN EY G EN ER A L O F TH E U N I TED STA TES, R e sp o n d e n t

O n Pet i t i on forR evi ew of an O r derof the B o a rd o f Im m ig ra tio n A p p e a ls ( A gencyN o. A 98- 892- 622) Im m ig ra tio n Ju d g e : H o n o ra b le H e n ryS . D o g in Subm i tt ed Pur s uantt o T hi r d C i r cui tL A R 34. 1( a)

M ay1, 2009 B efor e: A M B R O , FI SH E R and J O R D A N , C i r cui tJ udges

( O pi ni on fi l ed: J une 4, 2009)

OP I NI ON

P E R C UR I AM Z hi hong Z hao, a ci t i zen of t he Peopl e’ s R epubl i c of Chi na, s eeks r evi ew of a f i nal or derof the B oar d of I m m i gr at i on A ppeal s ( “B I A ”) aff i r m i ng a dec i s i on of the2

Im m ig ra tio n Ju d g e (“ IJ” ) d e n y in g h is a p p lica tio n s f o r a sy lu m , w ith h o ld in g o f re m o v a l, and pr ot ect i on undert he C onvent i on A gai ns tT or tur e ( “C A T ”) . Forthe fol l ow i ng r e a s o n s , we wi l l d e n yZ h a o ’ s p e t i t i o n f o rr e v i e w. I. Z hao ent er ed the U ni t ed St at es i n M ar ch 2005 w i t houti ns pect i on. O n M ay11, 2005, t he D epart m entof H om el and Secur i t yi s s ued a N ot i ce t o A ppearthatchar ged Zhao as r emovabl e under8 U . S. C . § 1182( a) ( 6) ( A ) ( i ) . Z hao ther eaf t erconce ded thathe w as r emovabl e butfi l ed an a ppl i cat i on foras y l um , w i t hhol di ng of r emoval , and C A T r el i ef c laim in g p a st p e rse c u tio n a n d a w e ll-fo u n d e d f e a r o f f u tu re p e rse c u tio n b a se d o n h is gi r l fr i end’ s for ced a bor t i on, hi s vi ol at i on of C hi na’ s bi r t h contr ol pol i cy , and hi s i l l egal tra v e l to th e U n ited S tate s (h e a lleg e d th a t h e w a s o n lyiss u e d a n e x it v isa to tra v e l to C u b a ). A thi s m er i t s hear i ng, Z hao cl ai m ed thathi s gi r l fr i end, Y an H ua Zhao, w ho l i ved w i t h h i m i n h i s parent s’ ho m e, becam e pregn ant i n A ug ust20 04 . A l t ho ug h itw as agai nst t he bi r t h contr ol pol i cyt o i m pr egnat e hi s gi r l fr i end out s i de of mar r i age, Z hao and Y an H u a d id n o t g e t m a rrie d b e c a u se th e yw e re u n d e ra g e . T h e ym o v e d in w ith Z h a o ’s u n c le t o avoi d t he fa m i l ypl anni ng offi ci al s . N evert hel es s , i n D ece m ber2004, w hen nei t her Z h ao n o r his u n cle w ere h o m e, go v ern m en t of ficials t o o k Y an H u a to a h o sp it al, w h ere sh e w a s s u b

jec ted to a f

o rc e d a b o rtio n . L e tters su b m itt e d b yZ h a o f ro m h is g irlfr ien d , h is father , and hi s uncl e s t at ed thatt he governm entoffi ci al s thr eat ened t o fi ne, arr es t , and3

i m pr i s on Z hao bec aus e he vi ol at ed the fa m i l ypl anni ng l aw s . Z hao and Y an H ua then w enti nt o hi di ng, and Zhao l eftC hi na, w i t h an exi tvi s a, i n February2005. Z hao t es t i fi ed th a t Y a n H u a re m a in s in h id in g in S h a n g h a i b e c a u se th e g o v e rn m e n t o f f icia ls s til l w ish to fi ne herforvi ol at i ng t he fa m i l ypl anni ng l aw s . Z hao al s o al l eged thathe w as i n dangerof bei ng per s ecut ed i f for ced t o r etur n t o C hi na bas ed on hi s vi ol at i on of the fa m i l ypl anni ng p o lic ya n d b e c a u s e h e ille g a lly tra v e le d to th e U n ite d S ta te s . O n M ar ch 17, 2006, t he I J deni ed al l r eques t ed r el i ef a ft erfi ndi ng Z hao t o be not c re d ib le . O n J a n u a ry 3 1 , 2 0 0 8 , th e B IA d is m is s e d Z h a o ’s a p p e a l. II. W e h a v e j u r i s d i c t i o n t o r e v i e w t h e BI A’ s f i n a l o r d e rp u r s u a n tt o 8 U. S . C. § 1252( a) ( 1) . W e r evi ew t he B I A ’ s fi ndi ngs of fa ct s underthe s ubs t ant i al evi dence sta n d a rd a n d w ill u p h o ld th e B IA ’s d e ter m in a tio n s “ u n les s th e e v id e n c e n o t o n lysu p p o rts a c o n tr aryco n clus ion , b u t com p els i t. ” Z u b ed a v . A sh cro ft, 3 3 3 F . 3 d 4 6 3 , 4 7 1 (3d C ir . 2003) ( i nt ernal ci t at i on om i t t ed) . D et erm i nat i ons as t o w hetheran as y l um appl i canthas been pe r s ecut ed orw hethert hati ndi vi dual has a w el l - founded f earof futur e per s ecut i on ar e fa ctual and ar e thus ent i t l ed t o defe r ence . W ang. v. G onzal es , 405 F. 3d 134, 138 ( 3d C ir. 2 0 0 5 ). B e c a u se Z h a o a p p e a ls o n lyf ro m th e B IA ’s d e ter m in a tio n th a t h e f a iled to d e m o n stra te a w e ll-fo u n d e d f e a r o f p e rse c u tio n b a se d o n h is v io latio n o f th e f a m ilyZ hao, w ho i s r epr es ent ed bycouns el , m ent i ons i n t he St at ementof the 1 A rgum ent i n h i s bri ef t hat he “est abli shed thatthe C hinese bi rth o ffi ci al s w anted t o arr est and i m pr i s on hi m forvi ol at i ng t he C hi nes e bi r t h contr ol pol i cy . ” A l t hough thi s coul d be read as an argum ent that the B IA i nco rr ect l ydeterm i ned that he di d n ot es t abli sh past per s ecut i on, he fa i l ed t o s uppor tt hi s ar gum enti n hi s br i ef. See Si m m ons v. C i t yof P h ilad e lp h ia, 9 4 7 F .2 d 1 0 4 2 , 1 0 6 5 (3 d C ir. 1 9 9 1 ). A c c o rd in g ly , h e h a s w a iv e d th e c laim th a t th e B IA e rr e d in its d e c is io n a s to p a s t p e rs e c u tio n . S e e K o s t, 1 F .3 d a t 1 8 2 .

A l t hough t he B I A di d nots peci fi cal l ym ent i on the l ett er s s ubm i t t ed by 2 Z hao’ s fami l ym ember s , i ts t at ed thati tr evi ew ed the r ecor d and thus ther e i s no ind icati o n that the B IA ign o red relev an t evid en ce o r m isco n stru ed the n ature o f Z h ao ’s cl ai m . See Shar darv. A t t or neyG en. , 503 F. 3d 308, 317 ( 3d C i r . 2007) ( r equi r i ng the B I A t o s how t hati t“r evi ew ed the r ecor d and gr as ped the movant ’ s cl ai m s ” ( i nt ernal c ita tio n o m itte d )) . 4 pl anni ng pol i ci es , t hati s t he onl ycl ai m thatw e w i l l cons i der . See K os tv. K ozaki ew i cz, 1 1 F .3 d 1 7 6 , 1 8 2 (3 d C ir . 1 9 9 3 ), s e e a ls o F e d . R . A p p . P . 2 8 . S u b sta n tial e v id e n c e su p p o rts th e B IA ’s f in d in g th a t Z h a o d id n o t es tab lish a w e llfounded f

earof per s ecut i on. See 8 U . S. C . § 1101( a) ( 42) . Fi r s t , al t hough Z hao s ubm i t t ed l et t er s fr om fami l ym ember s s t at i ng t hatgovernm entoffi ci al s thr eat ened t o arr es tand i m pr i s on hi m i n 2004 forvi ol at i ng the fa m i l ypl anni ng l aw s , the B I A r ecogni zed thathe di d nots ubm i tanyobj ect i ve evi dence s uppor t i ng the al l egat i on thathe w oul d be puni s hed upon hi s r etur n t o C hi na. See A bdi l l e v. A s hcr oft , 242 F. 3d 477, 496 ( 3d C i r . 2001) 2 ( acknow l edgi ng t hatan appl i cantm us t“s how thathe has a s ubj ect i ve fe arof per s ecut i on t h a ti s s u p p o r t e d b y o b

j e c t i v e e v i d e n c e th a tp e r s e c u t i o n i s a r e a s o n a b l e p o s s i b i l i t y” ( i nt ernal ci t at i on om i t t ed) ) . T he B I A appr opr i at el ydet erm i ned that , underthe ci r cumst ance s of thi s cas e, s uch a s anct i on does notr i s e t o t he l evel of per s ecut i on. C f. L i v. A t t or neyG en. , 400 F. 3d 157, 168- 70 ( 3d C i r . 2005) . G i ven thatZ hao di d not5

s ubm i tanyobj ect i ve evi dence r ebutt i ng the C ount r yR epor t , w e ca nnots aythatthe e v id e n c e c o m p e ls a c o n c lu s io n c o n tr a ry to th e B IA ’s d e c is io n . A c c o rd in g ly, w e w ill d e n yth e p e titio n f o r r e v ie w .